The decision by the top New York court to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s sex crimes conviction paves the way for former President Donald Trump’s appeal of his conviction for doctoring business records to hide hush money deals.
Legal experts say both cases boil down to the judges allowing too much prejudicial evidence against the defendants.
Mr. Weinstein’s 2020 conviction for various sex crimes against three women was tossed in April because the trial judge “erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes,” according to the searing 4-3 opinion by the New York Court of Appeals.
New York prosecutors plan to retry the case.
The Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Weinstein’s 23-year prison sentence, saying the trial court erred in allowing the prejudicial evidence from women who testified about Mr. Weinstein’s prior bad acts that were separate from the charges in the case.
The charges stemmed from three women who alleged sexual abuse by the Hollywood mogul but jurors heard about many others.
New York’s Court of Appeals reasoned the other women’s “testimony served no material non-propensity purpose.”
“Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality,” the ruling read.
Legal experts say Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan also allowed too much prejudicial evidence against Mr. Trump, such as salacious testimony of his alleged sexual encounter with porn actress Stormy Daniels, which did not relate to the charges of falsifying business records.
And then there was also testimony from David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher, about Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who was also paid to stay quiet about her alleged affair with Mr. Trump.
The jury, though, heard from Mr. Pecker about his non-prosecution agreement where he acknowledged that he thought the catch-and-kill scheme could be deemed a campaign finance issue.
But the McDougal payment — discussed between Mr. Pecker and Mr. Trump — was not part of the criminal charges.
“The cases are alike,” said Rod Phelan, a Texas attorney and renowned litigator. “There is a rule of evidence — it is called Rule 403 — that says when the unfair prejudice of evidence substantially outweighs the probative effect, the evidence can’t come in.”
Joseph Moreno, a former federal prosecutor, said the testimony of Ms. Daniels makes Mr. Trump’s case ripe for appellate review, noting the details of the alleged sexual encounter went too far.
“None of this had any bearing on [Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg’s case other than to prejudice the jury — an issue similar to the one that led the New York Court of Appeals to overturn Harvey Weinstein’s guilty verdict,” Mr. Moreno said.
“In the Weinstein case, the court found the prosecution introduced testimony of sexual assaults outside of those Weinstein was charged with, their only purpose being to prejudice the jury against him. The same could be said for the Trump case, in which Daniels’ testimony was entirely unnecessary,” he said.
During her time on the stand, Ms. Daniels testified that Mr. Trump was wearing silk pajamas when they allegedly met in a hotel room and that a condom was not used during the sexual intercourse.
Mr. Trump has denied the affair.
Both Mr. Phelan and Mr. Moreno also took issue with Michael Cohen’s guilty plea being discussed as a way to suggest he worked in conspiracy with Mr. Trump to violate campaign finance law. Mr. Trump was not charged with conspiracy.
Mr. Cohen, who was the star witness against Mr. Trump, pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax charges and a campaign finance violation for allegedly paying Ms. Daniels to stay quiet about her alleged affair with the former president. The payment was made during the 2016 campaign.
“There are at least a half dozen issues stemming from the Trump trial that are ripe for appeal, but the introduction of the Cohen plea deal is at the top of the list. It is a frequent reference point for lay observers who now believe that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen worked together in a conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws, an impression Judge Merchan was more than happy to indulge,” Mr. Moreno said.
Typically, a witness’s plea agreement can come into evidence to attack the credibility of that witness against the accused. But in Mr. Trump’s case, the judge permitted prosecutors to discuss the plea agreement.
Last month, a Manhattan jury found Mr. Trump guilty on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records by documenting the $130,000 Mr. Cohen paid to Stormy Daniels as “legal fees.”
Prosecutors upgraded the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony by contending it was done to cover up a tax crime or election tampering crime. The judge did not require the jury to agree on the underlying crime for the conviction.
Mr. Trump has said he plans to appeal.
His sentencing is scheduled for July 11.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.